Judgment No. 1689
Decision
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The case is sent back so that Eurocontrol may follow the procedure set out under 10.
3. The Agency shall pay the complainant 50,000 Belgian francs in costs.
4. His other claims are dismissed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Agency replies that [...] where candidates are found suitable and put on a par no explanation is called for, though 'a reasoned report would have made sense had the Board put the two candidates in order of preference'. The plea is unsound. It postulates that the complainant was unaffected by the finding that he was as fit for the post as the other candidate, and in any event overlooks the fact that the candidates are in competition. [...]. If two are ranked ex aequo each may have an interest in contending that the other should have been marked lower. [...]. In any event the final ranking [...] must be accounted for."
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; cause of action; competition; candidate; selection board
Consideration 4(c)
Extract:
It is true - as Judgment 1477, for one, affirmed - that, unless so empowered by a written text, a body may not delegate authority or competence. Yet here the material rules did not actually require the Selection Board to interview candidates itself. So it was free to get expert help in framing questions of a sort that only candidates with particular qualifications could answer, even though it still had to assess their answers itself and make recommendations accordingly.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1477
Keywords
delegated authority
| 
